Talk:Fascism/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2016 for "Fascism"

The proposed edit involves the last sentence of the introductory paragraph for "Fascism". The sentence reads "Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left-right spectrum".

This statement is most likely not true, and at the very least very dubious, as fascist societies tend to be on the far left of a properly defined political spectrum. Fascist governments tend to restrict free markets, and individual liberties.

The most significant examples of leftist fascism in modern history would be, Communist USSR, Communist China, and also the Nazi Party of Germany. The Nazi party, aka the National Socialist German Workers Party, were proponents of socialism, and opponents of capitalism. A modern-day example of leftist fascism would be Communist North Korea.

So I propose the last sentence of the first paragraph be edited to read "Fascism generally opposes classical liberalism, anarchism, and capitalism."

Sources:

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

Mgaudzels (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ahahahaha no. Try some less overtly biased sources. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Mises.org is dedicated to Ludwig von Mises who was an Austrian School and The Objective Standard alludes to Objectivism and Ayn Rand.

Fascism was undoubtedly illiberal, against workers and anarchist wishes. It is defined as "A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the marketplace, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights. Originally only applied (usually capitalized) to Benito Mussolini's Italy".

Referring to Economics of fascism, fascist economics was not so much anti-capitalist then a-capitalist as in reflecting a distinct "Third Position" (not be confused with the modern Third way which is political). There was not widespread state ownership as with the Soviet Union and what there was is a form economic dirigisme (as in to direct) since some big companies of the time still exist today.

There is confusion on this subject in terms of Nazism due to a Four Year Plan being in place in 1936 and Strasserists being genuinely anti-capitalist. The latter was eliminated with a form of dirigisme oppressing workers taking hold (the anti-thesis of worker-owning-production marxist socialism) as the German and Italian regimes of the time cross-seeded each other in approaching World War II.

To state that "fascist societies tend to be on the far left of a properly defined political spectrum" and "Fascist governments tend to restrict free markets, and individual liberties" is indicative of economic liberal view and ignores that "right wing" and "conservative" views in European politics were still influenced by support for monarchy and state towards the end of the 1800s. --JamesPoulson (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

---

 Not done as WP:UNDUE "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia" - Arjayay (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

At the very least the statement that fascism "is usually placed on the far-right" should be removed. This suggestion is purely politically motivated and is held by the minority. Highly subjective statements in this context have no place on Wikipedia. According to Wikipeida, "there is no firm consensus about the meaning of the terms left-wing and right-wing on the global level". However in America, in general, "right-wing implies a commitment to conservative Christian values, support for a free-market system and civil libertarianism(Which emphasizes the supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority)". Nothing about these beliefs are consistent with fascism. You cannot be both for small government, individual liberties, and also be fascist. This does not need a reference, it is simple logic. Most would place the best know fascistic dictators: Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, FDR... on the left side(socialist, communist, democrat...) of the American left-right spectrum. Leaving this statement on the page would be irresponsible as it is simply untrue. --Calebjely (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done; goes against consensus of long standing, both on and off Wikipedia; obviously trolling. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Orange Mike has inserted is own political beliefs here, and is not keeping a neutral point of view. There is no consensus, as shown by a long history of this question coming up. Sauve.sean (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of "consensus of long standing, both on and off Wikipedia". I quoted Wikipedia "there is no firm consensus about the meaning of the terms left-wing and right-wing on the global level". Your user page stating you are a Bernie Supporter and "disgusted by the corruption and stupidity of Southern politic" shows your bias as Administrator in editing a page on this topic in good faith. --Calebjely (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Forget it, Caleb. Young people in the US today have very limited binary minds. Conservatives = right-wing, Conservatives = bad, Fascism = bad, therefore fascism = conservative = right-wing. You can blame it on smart(?)phones and text messages. And the idiot yellow press. Maybe when he gets older things won't seem so black-and-white but for now, save your breath. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"when he gets older"? I'm already in my 60s, o anonymous pontificator, with an honors degree in history. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

---

There are similar simplisms on both sides 210.22.142.82. If one side is saying:

Conservatives = right-wing, Conservatives = bad, Fascism = bad, therefore fascism = conservative = right-wing

The other might be saying:

Progressives = left-wing, Progressives = bad, Communism = bad, therefore communism = progressive = left-wing

So it is very convenient for fascism to be equated with communism and vice-versa since it allows one side to paint the other as the source of all problems.

This when it is pointless to describe totalitarian regimes in terms of a democratic left or right since an all powerful "public" state can be seen as the "private" property of a tyrant.

Mainstream political debates have become highly polarised and driven by passion rather then reason. --JamesPoulson (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"Mike" you have just a BA...I have two MSs... Masters in International Relations and Masters in Strategic Intelligence in which I graduated with a 3.9 GPA in both and have been actually published, and you are completely wrong...there is not firm definition of fascism among scholars, which you are not one...you are putting your own ideology onto this page where you should be allowing those with more education and actual research in the area of Political Science/ International Relation's Theory to change your undergraduate type work...who cares about your BA...you are just trying to put a Leftist spin on the definition...how do you explain Paron in Argentina if it is only a Right-Wing ideology...hint he switched back and forth to maintain power...in the end Realism is the only proven theory...Mike, you did make me laugh with your touting of your BA...too funny...change the page to the correct phrasing "There is no consensus on whether Fascism falls on the Left or Right of the Political Spectrum because in many cases the paradigm has shifted and in the end totalitarianism became the norm. Scholars will continue to debate this definition until a clear case study arises to prove the thesis or the antithesis." If you can produce an actual scholarly case study then do it...your opinion is not fact...undergraduates are not allowed to have opinions...only spit back facts...please adjust or I will report you for biased editing and my credentials are much better than yours... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.95.1.11 (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

On the internet, no one knows you're a dog. Credentials are irrelevant, noone here cares about them, we will ignore them. Stick to professionally published academic sources instead of your personal understanding. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

//Hey guys not sure where to post this. I throughly disagree that fascism has at it's core tenets imperialism, as eurasianism is in it's own weird way anti-imperialist.// — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.204.1.1 (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There is an article, Italian imperialism under Fascism, that explains the Fascist project to create an Italian Empire. In Germany, the "Third Reich" was a clear implication that it was the successor of the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire. Both regimes used symbolism from the Roman Empire. TFD (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Roman politics still influences us to this day in terms of the Roman Republic, the opposition between Optimates and Populares as well as fasces still visible here and there. --JamesPoulson (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It has been disputed many times, with several sources listed, that the last sentence of the opening paragraph is too strongly worded, and has not been backed up by evidence. Keeping that sentence in it's current form is motivated by political agenda. --Sauve.sean (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The reason this gets disputed so many times is that some people who don't know much about history repeatedly refuse to accept that the overwhelming consensus among historians puts Fascism on the far right. Just read some reputable history books and see what they say. If you want to believe that that this consensus is wrong then that is your choice but it is a fringe view and we will not falsify the article to pretend that that the consensus does not exist just because a fringe of people disagree with it. We already acknowledge that the consensus is not universally accepted by using the word "mostly".

The only political agenda here is from people on the right who don't want to accept that anything bad ever came from their side. In a way that is understandable. Nobody wants to feel that something as bad as Fascism has anything to do with them at all. That doesn't change the facts though. The left has (mostly) learned to suck up Stalin and Mao and the right has to (mostly) learned to suck up Hitler and Mussolini. Nobody here is trying to say that everyone or everything on the right is tainted by Fascism any more than everybody on the left is tainted by Stalinism. Both sides have their bad eggs and Fascism is one that pretty much everybody agrees comes from the right. Even most reputable right wing historians agree. A few historians taking a different view gets you the word "mostly". Fringe groups of non-historians arguing based on their own political desires to avoid taint or push taint towards their opponents gets you nothing more than that. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: For "mostly" above please read "usually". Somehow I got the two mixed up. Sorry. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Please cite sources Sauve.sean (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The sentence "...and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum." is supported by references 3 and 4. Do you feel that those are unreliable, insufficient or misrepresented? If you have specific objections then they can be considered but it looks adequately sourced to me. What more do you want? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

References 3 and 4 support the definition of Fascism, do not support the assertion that "...and is usually place on the far-right with the traditional left-right spectrum." Sauve.sean (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't they? Did you actually check? I'd be very surprised indeed if that was the case. I don't have access to them myself so maybe somebody who does have access can check and let us know? If they really don't then we will need an additional reference but, even if this were to be the case, I can't imagine that it would present any difficulty to find one. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised actually, given how much of this page came to be. A lot of content has been added without proper analysis of sources, and then mixed around later on so that the notes no longer match their original content anyway. But of course there's no lack of actual sources that make the point and could be used (and the point is better sourced in the main body, AFAIK). Even polemicists like Goldberg who argue that fascism is actually left-wing, and the serious academics who question whether the classification is that useful or appropriate (there are some, if not that many), note the usual position when they raise their objections, and acknowledge they're kicking against the standard consensus. Given that the current wording is "usually placed" there is no case for changing it. This time-sink takes up 90% of the talk archives, and it's actually one of the simplest propositions about fascism – plus there are far worse problems with this page. As for demanding sources, there are ample throughout those past debates and on the page itself. N-HH talk/edits 11:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Do any of the sources you mention back up the statement that Fascism is *usually* placed on the far-right? I understand that we can find plenty of sources that claim Fascism to be far-right, but there are also plenty of articles already on the page that show a mix, or a blend, or even an irrelevance. We can not deduce what is *usually* the established consensus in academia without a source that explicitly looks at the prevalence of such thought, since we can not conduct original research here, or infer new things from disparate articles. (No original research). Sauve.sean (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so you don't know what's in the sources after all, making your prior claims that they don't support the content yet another lie on your part. Just because other articles hypothetically have problems does not mean that this article has those problems. If you aren't going to engage in honest and good-faith discussion, you should leave this article and talk page before you end up topic-banned or blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do know what I was talking about. I was asking about the sources N-HH brought up. Please assume good faith, and stick to the subject matter instead of personal attacks.Sauve.sean (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I also wanted to apologize for not giving other editors the same courtesy. It's easy to get upset when the first edit you try to make is met with immediate ban warnings. However, that is no excuse for my previous comments. I hope we can move past it, and Ian will refrain from accusing me of lying in the future, as he has done on my talk page since very early on. Sauve.sean (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If you know what you're talking about, you would not be asking if the sources back up the statement, or making irrelevant claims about hypothetical problems in other articles. Claiming that multiple editors in good standing are acting out of a political agenda when you were the one citing partisan sources was lying. Referring to your personal attack potshot at a months old post as "extensive discussion" was lying. When I pointed out your misdoings and highlighted the drastic difference between your claims at DRN and documented reality, I provided links to the specific actions you took. That's not lying, that's presenting evidence. Further example of what presenting evidence looks like: a "brand new" account posted in response to my last post as if he were you, removed it, and then you posted an identical message, even with the same mistake. That's proof that you've created a sockpuppet account. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There is clearly no consensus for any edit requests to be approved. Seek consensus before using this template. st170e 01:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: I have disabled the edit request template again. Please stop changing to answered - there is no consensus. st170e 01:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The information page for edit requests says, "consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial." You need to get consensus for this change before submitting your request. By leaving the request as open, you are wasting the time of editors responding to open cases, since they cannot action your request. TFD (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The sentence on neo-fascism should be removed.

The following sentence should be removed: "The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th century fascist movements."

This is the page for fascism, not neo-fascism. It is a poor description of neo-facism in its own right, but even if it weren't, it is not relevant to this page and is another example of an edit trying to spin fascism as "far-right". The citation for this sentence has nothing to do with the sentence itself as the citation mentions nothing of far right ideologies. It only reference the Italian Social Republic the Italian Social Movement. "Mussolini had originally intended to call his new republic the Italian ‘Socialist’ Republic", because he was a socialist, as many understand as the opposite of "far-right".

Calebjely (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but rather obviously "neofascism" is related to "fascism". The point of the final part of the lead is to offer a brief, final note about modern aspects of fascism beyond its 20th century apogee, reflecting the material that covers that point in the main body, and it seems a pretty accurate description of the point to me. Fascism is not what it was, but there are plenty of sources that would suggest it still exists, even if in a diluted or modernised form. I accept the sourcing is currently a bit odd, but leads don't need sources since they summarise material that is contained and sourced in the main body. N-HH talk/edits 08:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The fact that fascism continued after the war is worth mentioning. TFD (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Pointless waxing poetic

I find it baffling that this article goes on for miles about what fascism is, with all these wishy-washy definitions of the term. It seems obvious to me that the only truly defining feature of fascism is the total power the state holds over the individual; the same way it does in any authoritarian regime. The rights of the individual mean nothing, the state arbitrarily decides what is "best" for the people, and anyone who goes against that is crushed, by whatever means. --Antred (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is the definition from Wiktionary:

(historical) A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the marketplace, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Radical surgery - removing two whole sections

This page has long had serious problems. As a whole, it's garbled and badly written, with dubious stress being put on cherry-picked aspects of the topic. The lead fails to clearly and concisely explain what fascism is – or at least what connects those movements and ideas usually labelled as fascist – instead, especially in the mid-section, just listing things fascists supposedly believed and why they believed them, as well as ruminations on WW1.
Past efforts to rewrite the lead have got nowhere, as no one agrees on what should be there, but as a simple initial step towards solving the wider issues, can I suggest the wholesale deletion of the last two sections, on "Criticisms of fascism" and "Distinctions between fascism and other ideologies"? Criticism sections are deprecated on WP. For example, we know fascism is authoritarian – what does it add to say that it has been "criticised" [sic] for being so? And while comparisons can be useful, especially where they mark out distinctions, it's not clear what that second section has added to the page other than an opportunity for people to pass by and add selective quotations to imply that fascism is very much like socialism etc. It seems to be about point-scoring rather than neutral explanation. N-HH talk/edits 15:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I think the article should explain the various theories of fascism (the "consensus" theory, the Marxist theory, etc.) and their historical development and degree of acceptance. TFD (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree to see that section go and it's fun to see the cherry-picking. As if socialism is the only way for a country to go totalitarian when people in a government could simply decide to break with democracy :p --JamesPoulson (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Origins of Fascism

When you look at the political origins of Fascism in Italy, it grew from the socialist movement. Indeed Mussolini described himself as a socialist, and Fascism as a form of socialism long after being kicked out of the Socialist party in 1914.

The idea that Fascism is right wing today rather than left, appears to have arisen from varying definitions of the concepts of the political left and right, and therefore is a misleading concept that should be avoided.

From Wikiquote (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mussolini):

Do not believe, even for a moment, that by stripping me of my membership card you do the same to my Socialist beliefs, nor that you would restrain me of continuing to work in favor of Socialism and of the Revolution.

Speech at the Italian Socialist Party’s meeting in Milan at the People’s Theatre on Nov. 25, 1914. Quote in Revolutionary Fascism by Erik Norling, Lisbon, Finis Mundi Press (2011) p. 88.

For this I have been and am a socialist. The accusation of inconsistency has no foundation. My conduct has always been straight in the sense of looking at the substance of things and not to the form. I adapted socialisticamente to reality. As the evolution of society belied many of the prophecies of Marx, the true socialism folded from possible to probable. The only feasible socialism socialisticamente is corporatism, confluence, balance and justice interests compared to the collective interest.

As quoted in “Soliloquy for ‘freedom’ Trimellone island”, on the Italian Island of Trimelone, journalist Ivanoe Fossani, one of the last interviews of Mussolini, March 20, 1945, from Opera omnia, vol. 32. Interview is also known as "Testament of Benito Mussolini, or Testamento di Benito Mussolini. Also published under “Mussolini confessed to the stars”, Publishing House Latinitas, Rome, 1952. (Intervista di Ivanoe Fossani, Soliloquio in “libertà” all'isola Trimellone, Isola del Trimellone, 20 marzo 1945)

79.218.212.90 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"When you look at the political origins of Fascism in Italy, it grew from the socialist movement."

Some reliable sources explaining this would be welcome.

"Indeed Mussolini described himself as a socialist"

Careful with the possibility of an Association fallacy and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is not democratic.

"The idea that Fascism is right wing today rather than left"

The definition used on Wikipedia can be found on Right-wing politics and has to do with inequality and stratification of society. You are perhaps referring to the liberal/libertarian man-versus-state view of Left–right politics.

The correspondence with a political wing is not that relevant anyway since an oligarchic government would not care for concerns of either wing and you'd be hard pressed to gain popular support by saying you want to take over a country. --JamesPoulson (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed Mussolini was a Socialist, as were Ludwig von Mises, Hayek, and lots of other icons of the Right before they weren't. Reagan and Bush were liberals. If you think he remained a socialist, you do not understand what socialism means. TFD (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Remove Donald J Trump from being listed as a quick link under "people"

Title, obviously this is a political move. Whoever included the edit should be locked from editing the page further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.72.42 (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not for us to prejudge the historical consensus on Trump. I can see where the people adding him are coming from but it is far too soon to make this call and it is not a call for us to make. Historians will decide and we will follow what they say on the subject. In the meantime he should not be listed.

I would not like to see people adding this in good faith blocked from editing but if people are persistent and ignore warnings then it may be necessary. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

agreed. the source does not actually use the term anyway, instead it refers to fascism-lite. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It may be for historians to examine the record post hoc to determine whether the Trump administration meets criteria offered in the article. Nonetheless, there are already abundant observable facts that are consistent with the definitions offered here, in his public run to the presidency and actions of his Administration. Moreover, to suggest that hindsight is the only appropriate mechanism, is intellectually problematic: there would be no way to confront fascism in the present if it can only be defined in the future. From a more practical perspective, people hear the term fascist applied, and they go to the Internet to learn more about it. Not mentioning it in the article, ignores the elephant in the room. Even a brief paragraph stating that some have applied the term loosely to Trump's rise to power - perhaps mentioning the facts that are consistent with the assertion and other facts that aren't - and that historians will review the totality of his ascent, and achievements as president, to determine whether the term aptly applies. It is inarguable that the record, so far, includes many of the behaviors/attributes of fascism noted in the article. And that like many things, fascism manifests on a spectrum of behavior. Final attribution will be subjective, "in the eyes of the historian." Obviously, Donald Trump is no Hitler or Mussolini, but what is the threshold for attributing the designation? Or is it some intellectual construct without practical/actionable meaning outside of philosophical discourse. How much behavior needs to be consistent with fascism before historians appropriately apply the term; this seems to be avoided in the article. Almost certainly techniques described as "fascist" can be harnessed for advantage without satisfying some abstract definition. Finally, isn't it a form of political correctness to avoid entirely the question that brought readers to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.215.175.61 (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017

Adowell0007 (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise known as leftism.

 Not done Wikipedia operates off of reality-based sources instead of ironic political propaganda. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead, again

A recent edit used the Oxford Companion to Comparative Politics as a source (not exactly accurately, it seems), which I haven't seen before. Its section on fascism looks like a useful overview of the topic that would help with refactoring the lead. As noted previously, the current version is full of rambling theorising about World War 1 and claims about what fascists supposedly "believed". It could be much more succinct on the significance of the war and also be clearer about what characterised fascism, particularly in practice as opposed to purported ideology or beliefs. N-HH talk/edits 09:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2017

I would like to edit the description that fascism is a right wing political ideology because that is false. The left-right political spectrum is based off of the more government control the further to the left the ideology land on the left-right spectrum. As the right side of the left-right spectrum is less government control you would have classical liberalism, conservatism, libertarians, and the furthest to the right on the right side of the left-right spectrum would be anarchy because that advocates for no government control. Fascism does not advocate any of the things on the right side of the spectrum and to be labeled far-right is misleading and overall incorrect. Because the farthest right you can get is being an anarchist. Except maybe Anarcho-Communists but as I described Anarchists are basically the opposites of communists making anarcho-communists a political contradiction. To specify the left side of the spectrum of the left-right political spectrum just to be through. You would have modern day liberals, fascists, and communists. The far-right label attached to fascism actually came from the Spanish Civil War, where Communists used it as propaganda against the Fascists claiming that they were far-right lunatics. Because well to communists, fascists are far-right lunatics, but aside from an extremely far-left point of view, fascism is a fairly far left type of system. 00:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Littlegreen5300 (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Littlegreen5300 is not very convincing. he seems to think the Spanish civil war was between two left-wing forces with the right nowhere to be seen. He needs to provide cites to the reliable secondary sources he is using to make these assertions. Rjensen (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires sources, not assertions. In any case this is an outgrowth of National Review writer who has found favor with American conservatives, who see fascism as a handy label to apply to those on the left that they don't like in defiance of the past 85 years of political scholarship. Acroterion (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

https://www.britannica.com/event/Spanish-Civil-War http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/59392 Here is a source that is very in depth on political thought in general and only one labels fascism as far-right while another example separates fascism and Franco (called Franquism) which is labeled as far right. Even though it doesn't fully back me up, I do recommend reading it regardless of that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlegreen5300 (talk • contribs)

New comments go at the bottom of the page. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how those sources directly support your claim that fascism is considered right-wing only as a result of Communist propaganda. The Cambridge source says that one author (Lipset) regarded Fascism as extreme centrism, and that a later author (Eysenk) separated fascism (opposed by liberalism) as a second axis perpendicular to left and right wing politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Read up yourself, you're right to think that no right wing thought would exist in a country is absurd but the main players in the Spanish Civil War were the Nationalists supported by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany and the mainly Stalin supported the Spanish Republicans. I mean just read up here is a third party source detailing events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlegreen5300 (talk • contribs)

@Littlegreen5300: New comments go at the bottom, and sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Wikipedia does not draw original conclusions, so you need to find sources that explicitly make and directly support the claims you are making. We don't want 'evidence,' we want a source that you can cite almost verbatim (just don't plagiarize the source's phrasing). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Doctrine of Fascism Authorized translation of Mussolini's "The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism" (1933) (PDF). media.wix.com. Readings on Fascism and National Socialism by Various – Project Gutenberg Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt – Umberto Eco's list of 14 characteristics of Fascism, originally published 1995.

Using the external links that Wikipedia gives itself on Fascism doesn't align with the right wing on the left-wing spectrum, Mussolini himself had a paragraph titled, REJECTION OF INDIVIDUALISM AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATE. The first sentence stating, Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism. So it is against individualism and against materialism which in this case I'm pretty sure he's talking about Economic materialism which is certainly not a socialist ideal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_materialism (there I'll reference Wikipedia itself.) Fascism is not socialism but Fascism is definitely not right wing, at least economically, I could go further but it seems others have done a way better job at trying to convince Wikipedia that fascism is not a far right political ideology so regardless of what I say about it. Also to respond to Ian Thomson's comment about Wikipedia drawing conclusions it seems the evidence to support fascism being a far-right political ideology is one that is up for debate and putting it up on Wikipedia as a far-right political ideology is drawing conclusions which you said Wikipedia doesn't do, so by that alone shouldn't that be reason enough to at least remove any reference to it being far-right? Littlegreen5300 (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)little greenLittlegreen5300 (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

We await a consensus of scholarship over the past 85 years that rejects fascism as a phenomenon of the right. What you think or conclude from the above is not useful on Wikipedia. We are all aware that it can be over-simplified on a one-axis left-right scale, but given the recent fashion in the US and Europe for using fascist as an all-purpose epithet for perceived oppressors by partisans on the left and the right the reliance on disinterested scholarship isn't going to be any more susceptible to change than it is anywhere else on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"Less government control" is a defining characteristic of the Right but a position that they had assumed by the 1970s when the Nolan Chart was designed. The original right had of course been ultra-royalists. Nonetheless, until they prepared for war, fascists supported less government control of the economy than either socialists or conservatives and Ludwig von Mises and other libertarians advised them on economic policy. TFD (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"Less government control" is libertarian. it is rejected in USA by the religious right -- which wants more government control for example over marriage and gays and moral issues generally. Rjensen (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

As ever, the problem is not with the assertion that fascism is anti-individualist and tended to prefer a corporatist economic model, with a significant (although not necessarily dominant) economic role for the state, but with the assumption that the left-right spectrum is defined simply by the shift from collectivism/statism (left) to individualism/libertarianism (right), in both economics and other areas. It isn't and never has been. That in turn is why most academic study has no problem with placing fascism on the right of that divide, due to the other common factors found in fascist philosophy/practice (eg aggressive nationalism, reactionary social positions etc). And arguing about the underlying justifications is all a bit moot anyway: the fact is that that classification system is general academic and everyday practice, which is what counts for WP content purposes. Assuming good faith, I could say that this was at least explaining some basic stuff to a new editor about both the real world and WP practice; more cynically, I'm tending to assume that a lot of the new accounts that turn up repeatedly to rehash this debate are just the same person trolling over and over. N-HH talk/edits 14:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Littlegreen5300 is committing the same fallacy here that I sometimes hear from right wing writers who wish to distance themselves from the bad actions of the right in the past. The fallacy here is that the difference between liberal and conservative is based on how much government they want. This is false. Modern day Conservatives support limits on abortion and gay marriage and an expanded military, all of which requires expanded government. Conservatives also focus much more on patriotism, something that it shares with Fascism more than Liberalism does. Modern day Liberals support abortion rights, gay marriage, and lower levels of military spending, all of which expand liberty beyond what Conservatives advocate. And as mentioned above, three centuries ago Conservatives were far more likely to support a strong monarchy than Liberals were, so it was Liberals advocating for more liberty (hence the name). The true difference between Liberals and Conservatives is whether they advocate for change or not. A Liberal seeks to change society in order to improve it. A Conservative seeks to keep society the way it is or to turn it back to what it was in the past, which they see as better. That is the one difference that has held true for every case of Liberalism and Conservatism, regardless of country or time period. Because that is what the terms ultimately mean. Hibernia86 (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we get a better definition?

Fascism is the State controlling businesses. The Nazis nationalized many industries. The State taking over sectors of the economy such as Healthcare is Socialism. Government incentives for certain crops or forms of energy, may be necessary, but are steps towards Socialism. If the takeover is done by a bunch of people, it is Communism. If done by one person with a pen and a phone, it is Fascism. I realize that my statement is too political for a Wikipedia definition, but no mention of industry is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.26.242.95 (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

no. Stanley G. Payne A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 (1996) p 122 - ‎states: "In practice, Fascist 'totalitarianism' referred to the preeminent authority of the state in areas of conflict, not to total— or in most cases even approximate—day-to-day institutional control. ... Big business, industry, and finance retained extensive autonomy, particularly in the early years." see https://books.google.com/books?id=x_MeR06xqXAC&pg=PA122 Rjensen (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

---

What is meant by control though and how many is "many" and if it was a lot then why not call it communism?

State communism as existed in the Soviet Union involved widespread state ownership or complete nationalization whereas fascist economics involved a form of dirigisme as in to direct an economy.

Fascism is by definition a, "political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the marketplace" which is how economic production and logistics was provided to support mass mobilization as in turning civilians into combatants. Some company names which I won't mention here were involved and still exist today.

As for healthcare, that is not socialism in the workers-owning-enterprise sense of the word but has to do with the Welfare state which in Europe was first put into place by the prince and duke Otto von Bismarck in the 1880s and perpetuated to the present day through Social democracy (which Karl Marx wrote about in the Critique of the Gotha Program) as in being linked to the Social Democratic Party of Germany which was influenced by Ferdinand Lassalle.

To add to this, politics before the war was not the same as it is today and in Europe right-wing politics was partly authoritarian as in perhaps still being influenced by European conservatism as in wishing to preserve monarchy and a strong state, with the British Conservative Party having shifted its support away from nobility and aristocracy towards a capitalist economy in perhaps the late 1800s.

Today's right-wing politics is more influenced by liberalism (as in classical) and the liberal republican tradition of the United States in interpreting the left–right paradigm in terms of "man versus the state" instead of the people (pro-republicans) versus king and centralised authority (pro-monarchists).

If one is seeking out the factual, there is lots of information to clarify the subject. Wikipedia is not about facts but references though as Rjensen has provided. --JamesPoulson (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Going back to the Webster dictionary, there is no indication that fascism is "right-winged". It is merely a belief in strong control by the government, which is why Hilter (a democratic socialist) was a fascist. The right is believes in the Constitution which is founded on individual liberty; therefore is completely opposite to fascism. Progressives would be best aligned with fascism; however, all mention of right and left should be taken out for purpose of purity and separation of political view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djca73 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Try the OED: "An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."[1] In any case we use textbooks rather than dictionaries for definitions. Your view is fairly common on conspiracy theory websites but since it lacks any credibility in reliable sources, there is no need to rebut it. The Right by the way did not believe in the Weimar Constitution, the Social Democrats did. TFD (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Djca73, Liberalism has a strong belief in democracy and free speech, which Fascism does not. It would be more correct to say that modern Conservatism has been moved much closer to the traditional Liberal views than it was in the past, but ultimately Conservatism is about keeping the society the same or reverting it back to a former state, which Fascism is much closer aligned with (by preserving tradition and recreating the totalitarian governments found under past Monarchies)Hibernia86 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Fascism can fall on both sides of the aisle. Revert back to the version from 03:05, 17 November 2015‎. The current version is biased and inaccurate. Stating that "yet also takes from the far left, with points like: state control of the means of production, and suppression of dissenting view points towards the state and it's beneficiaries" should not be controversial. Didn't mean to delete the previous version. Just meant to state what I think. Fascism can fall on both sides of the political aisle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by You-are-a-liar (talk • contribs) 00:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources disagree, and reverting hundreds of edits spanning over a year is totally unrealistic. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The editor is now indefinitely blocked. TFD (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Fascism can also fall under the extreme left as well. There are many critics who after that leftists can be fascists. I-want-truth (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As is their next account above. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017

Where is your basis for facists being "Right wing" or "extreme right wing"? This is an inaccurate term since those who lean right want smaller government and are against autocracy and a strong central government. Claiming "right wingers" are facists is a smear tactic by Leftists to distract independent thinkers. I reject group think and I am no pleader for any politician. But when your wikipedia definition lies outright about who and what a facist is I must speak up. Facists were Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin for example. They were all ultra leftists and did not believe in freedom for the massses. Get it right and remove your slant or we will oust you your boldfaced ideological lies. 32.97.110.61 (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Dude. Read a history book. And maybe also a dictionary.

Seriously though. Those words you use don't mean what you think they do. Check out the references if you think we are wrong and you will see the real situation. In the meantime, you can forget your stupid threats to "oust" anything. That is not how things work round here. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove reference to "right wing" political spectrum

The addition of the statement about fascism being on the right end of the political left-right spectrum is misleading and incorrect, as well as self serving to liberals who currently incorrectly consider anyone on the conservative side of politics to be fascist. Particularly given the recent behavior of left leaning liberals stifling free speech on college campuses, this redefining of the word is peculiar and not fooling anyone with a real dictionary. In 2017, the behavior of the left fits the definition of fascism very well. It's better to just leave the association with the left or the right out of the definition. Or you are going to end up with an entire generation of misinformed millennials throwing that word around at anything that they disagree with or that is conservative. JRReynolds (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

See above. There is consensus, and there are reliable sources cited in the article, for the association of fascism with the far-right. General Ization ^Talk 04:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Well... this is just fun! Let me say: although fascism does (I think, I don't know to much about the topic) follow a socialist-like economic system, other tennents of fascism, like nationalism and anti-elitism (see our page for far-right politics) are consistent with far-right politics. Additionally, the "third way" system means that it combines parts of capitalism too, shifting it a bit to the right. This culminates in its description as far-right politics. And, for the record, I do not believe that conservatism is Nazism/fascism, and I think that anybody who thinks that is plain wrong and obviously hasn't read the page. (this is more of an argument, but see the above, as it is also correct) RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 04:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, and the same goes for describing liberals as such. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 04:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Provide professionally-published mainstream academic sources that demonstrate mainstream academia's assessment of that matter is somehow not represented by the plethora of sources from Routledge, Oxford University Press, Princeton University Press and many other reputable publishers cited in this article. If you can't, then read Psychological projection and think long and hard about your accusations regarding "misinformed millennials" and who is "redefining [...] the word". Ian.thomson (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah! But we can't take the word of the professionals, as they are part of the cabal (that is non-existent) of people trying to brainwash millennials! I mean, all the editor is trying to do is bring up some serious biases! :P RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 04:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I've thought long and hard about my accusations regarding misinformed millennial's, and I have determined that I am correct. Thank you for the suggestion. Also, I think you probably could have just left your response as "I don't know much about the topic," and left it at that. And you must be joking about mainstream academic resources being reliable and unbiased. JRReynolds (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Mainstream academic sources are our standard for reliability here. We don't care what you believe you know, we stick to mainstream academia. If you have a problem with that, you should find a different site. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fascism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111120193621/http://ah.brookes.ac.uk/resources/griffin/coreoffascism.pdf to http://ah.brookes.ac.uk/resources/griffin/coreoffascism.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910055552/http://ah.brookes.ac.uk/history/staff/griffin/coreoffascism.pdf to http://ah.brookes.ac.uk/history/staff/griffin/coreoffascism.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111119043735/http://varldenshistoria.se/stine-overbye/fascismen-borjar-gro to http://varldenshistoria.se/stine-overbye/fascismen-borjar-gro
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930081524/http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html to http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2017

I strongly object to the characterization of fascism as a right-wing philosphy, as in this sentence:

"Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum."

This is pure editorializing and propaganda, and demonization of conservatives. Perhaps is IS place on the far-right - by biased liberabls. Merriam Webster defines fascism as follows:

1 a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2 tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge

"dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" - I would posit that this matches the far LEFT. For example, Obama was a dictatorial leader who imposed severe regulation on business. Social justice warriors, also associated with the left, work to impose social regimentation and control through bullying and attempt at shaming. Forcible suppression of opposition is clearly seen today by groups such as the ironically named Anti-fa who riot and violently attack businesses and conservatives, college campuses and students who refuse to allow free speech from conservatives, and liberals in general who are trying to destroy democracy by removing the duly elected current president with riots, violence, and attacks on businesses and conservatives.

I have read that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias, which I can certainly see in this article and others. Also see http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1-david-swindle. So this does not surprise me. However, as someone who has donated several times upon your request (but will not donate again), I ask that you remove the left-wing propaganda aspects of your articles on facism, as you are doing nothing other than supporting and justifying the current violence against right-wing supporters. Otherwise I will wait until my permissions come through and attempt an edit on my own, to remove your biased assignment of facism to the right. Marbief13 (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows its own policies of "Neutrality" and "No synthesis", which means that articles must reflect what the majority of experts say. While experts may be wrong, readers expect that what they read will resemble what they would find in textbooks. Whatever our personal beliefs on the matter, it would against policy for us to make your requested change. You would have to get policy changed first.

I am closing your request because you would need to get consensus for your change before asking for the change. You are free to open a new discussion thread however.

TFD (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2017

Remove the political bias which states "fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum". This is not only not true but it is misleading and now we have actual fascist groups who are among the far left who are using this definition to support their cause. This is dangerous, and if you don't want Wikipedia to be considered "fake news" then these types of biases need to be corrected. There are numerous other requests for this and yet this bias remains. MaxAiring (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not a "bias" . it is the consensus of reliable sources. See The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right (2005) by Peter Davies, Derek Lynch, excerpts are online. Rjensen (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It IS bias because fascism is not a partisan ideology. If you want to make it a "left right" thing then it should be noted that every single fascist leader including the "founder" Benito Mussolini was a leftist, being a leader of the Italian Socialist party and supporter of the communist movement in Europe. Fascism is totalitarian dictatorship and thus can have views both left and right which is why there is so much concern over the partisan suggestion in the Wikipedia definition. MaxAiring (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This is why I ask for a consensus. Not everyone is going to agree with your statement. Also, Wikipedia is not a battleground for political views. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

article is misleading

"Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce,[3] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[4][5]"

however,

Fascism is a big government, totalitarian, economic, and political ideology that arose in early twentieth century Europe and came to dominate the social and political systems of Italy under Benito Mussolini and Germany under Adolf Hitler. Fascism was primarily statist in nature, relying on big government solutions and "crony capitalism", and openly hostile towards conventional religion. Fascism was influential in Portugal as well, and had followers in most European countries and in Argentina. The last regime that had some fascist elements, that of Francisco Franco in Spain, came to an end in 1975. Fascism was falsely considered "Far-Right" in politics, mostly due to Joseph Stalin denouncing Hitler and the National Socialists as "right-wing" after World War II, but it in reality was considered closer to the far-Left.[1][2]

1. http://www.regnery.com/books/the-big-lie/ 2. Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., New York Times Magazine, April 4, 1948. http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.14.204.34 (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Rather than provide your own reasoned arguments you would need to show that expert opinion does not consider it to be on the far right. Certainly though there are statists on the right and anti-statists on the left, for example anarchists. TFD (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2017

Fascism has always been considered a "left wing" philosophy because it involves oppressive government controls on industry and commerce, (similar to socialism). The oppression of opposing views and the restriction of free speech also put Fascism heavily in the "left wing" category. Fascism is the antithesis of conservatism. 2602:301:7735:14E0:2123:8E13:BF3C:E7C (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

incomplete definition omits origins (of central & southeast Europe)

the opening paragraph doesn't include the national socialistic aspects of fascism (??) ... it's misleading saying that it has only far right characteristics, when the socialistic aspects are widely regarded as left. the sentence below would be more accurately written as the following:

Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is either placed on the far-left due to national socialism that characterized the fascist regimes in central and southeastern Europe (Moss, Myra E. (1995), "Origin & Evolution of European Fascism", Claremont McKenna College: 4) or the far-right in southwestern Europe.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikuser2 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You are not actually quoting Myra Moss--she is providing the introduction to “The Origins and Development of the Fascist Right in Germany". that is she places german fascism on the right. The "socialism" in "National Socialism" is the right wing version that means national control of society, which is what they did in Italy and Germany. Rjensen (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I read the citation and she does not say National Socialism was left-wing or that anyone else did. TFD (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)